Mr Khan said:
kitler53 said:
fordy said:
kitler53 said:
fordy said:
o_O.Q said:
really and truly i place most of the blame on geohot, had he not distributed means to break through the security sony wouldn't have removed other os ( there would have been no reason to )
|
You mean the security on a device that he paid for? That bastard! How dare he attempt to modify something that's his!
People here have to realise that this was Sony's attempt to regulate user purchased hardware in order to save money on server-side security. After this debacle, as well as the hacking attempts on a lax security PSN, it has come back to bite them on the ass.
Now, if Sony was handing out PS3s for free, then you wouldn't hear me complaining. Sony could do what they want with hardware that's still theirs, but this is hardware purchased by a customer. Are you really going to stand there and say that Sony have a right to do this?
|
yes.
|
I'm sure you're looking forward to the day when corporate entities tell you exactly what to do...
|
lolol, the crux of the issue is i believe in IP and you don't. i believe that individuals as well as corporations that invest in the creation of new things and new ideas deserve ownership of their work. you believe you are entitled to other peoples work.
|
Yes, we all know what you tend to believe in on that front (destruction of the internet as we know it is incoming, btw. Best enjoy it while you can)
Sony has no right to dictate what individuals can and cannot do on the property that they own. Intellectual property stops cold when it comes to what you physically own and your rights to alter your property as you wish, or the distribution of information as such (there can be no such limitation on this information unless the information is itself a replication of the property)
|
"to what you physically own and your rights to alter your property as you wish"
exactly but i don't think kitlers was talking about legitaimate purchasers of a product, i actually think he was talking about pirates
"i believe that individuals as well as corporations that invest in the creation of new things and new ideas deserve ownership of their work"
if i understand him correctly all he's saying is that the publishers and developers ( in this context ) deserve to be compensated for the work they put out and i agree with that
